argument241 销售7.10

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

241The following appeared in a memo at the XYZ company.
"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."


Word 376

The comparison of the two companies made in the argument can not convince me that Delany is superior than Walsh since several fallacies are made as follows:

Firstly, it is unreasonable to assume that the less time it takes the laid-off employees to find jobs, the better one company's services are, since detailed information about the positions are not considered by the arguer. Perhaps, the persons who have found jobs within a short period of time were just looking for a temporary job in order to support their families. In fact, they were not satisfied with the jobs and were still searching better opportunities. On the other hand, those who took longer to be employed may have found better positions, which offer higher salaries and more vacations. In addition, the argument fails to investigate the future development of those employees’ career. Are those who found jobs quicker all promoted or keeping being laid off? Without these vital information about jobs, it is groundless to claim that Delany benefits the laid-off workers.

Second, comparing the rate of employment 8 years ago of Walsh with that of Delany one year ago is not convincing. One must consider the circumstances of the time 8 years ago. Perhaps society might be suffering financial crisis then and it was difficult for all people to find jobs. But one year later, with the help of Walsh, they all succeeded being employed. One must also take into account the employment rate of Walsh at present. Perhaps, with their assistance, one can find a more satisfactory position in shorter time than being served by Delany.

Finally, both bigger staff and larger number of branch offices are not symbols of superioty. Does the company of Delany work efficiently with bigger staff? In most conditions, More employees can only mean more troubles which brought by competitions and disagreements. Besides, do they need more offices? Probably, the staffs are giving assistance through phone and the Internet instead of by face to face. Consequently, bigger staff and larger working space can only indicate high charges rather than better services.

To conclusion, before any final choices are made, the XYZ company has to collect more concrete statistics about the two personnel firms in order to benefit the laid-off employees.

yuling-10GUID: 2849632

The comparison of the two companies made in the argument can not convince me that Delany is superior than Walsh since several fallacies are made as follows:

Firstly, it is unreasonable to assume that the less time it takes the laid-off employees to find jobs, the better one company's services are, since detailed information about the positions are not considered by the arguer. Perhaps, the persons who have found jobs within a short period of time(of time删掉更好？) were just looking for a temporary job in order to support their families. In fact, they were not satisfied with the jobs and were still searching better opportunities. On the other hand, those who took longer to be employed may have found better positions, which offer higher salaries and more vacations. In addition, the argument fails to investigate the future development of those employees’ career. Are those who found jobs quicker all promoted or keeping being laid off? Without these vital information about jobs, it is groundless to claim that Delany benefits the laid-off workers.

Second, comparing the rate of employment 8 years ago of Walsh with that of Delany one year ago is not convincing. One must consider the circumstances（economic circumstances/environment是经济环境的意思，专门查的） of the time 8 years ago. Perhaps society might be suffering financial crisis then and it was difficult for all people to find jobs. But one year later, with the help of Walsh, they all succeeded being employed. One must also take into account the employment rate of Walsh at present. Perhaps, with their assistance, one can find a more satisfactory position in shorter time than being served by Delany.

Finally, both bigger staff and larger number of branch offices are not symbols of superioty. Does the company of Delany work efficiently with bigger staff? In most conditions, More employees can only mean more troubles which brought by competitions and disagreements.（这个好像这么说不好吧，首先，竞争不一定是坏事，其次，跨国公司都有很多员工的，我觉得还是说DPF公司可能效率低下，才导致员工和分点多。） Besides, do they need more offices? Probably, the staffs are giving assistance through phone and the Internet instead of by face to face. Consequently, bigger staff and larger working space can only indicate high charges rather than better services（最后一句觉得也欠妥，还是跨国公司那个理由）.

To conclusion, before any final choices are made, the XYZ company has to collect more concrete statistics about the two personnel firms in order to benefit the laid-off employees.



哎，你的文章真的写的很好，尤其是语言方面，估计我永远也达不到这个水平
加油~~~

colin8741UID: 2835824

1# 追梦小木耳
The comparison of the two companies made in the argument can not convince me that Delany is superior than Walsh since several fallacies are made as follows:

Firstly, it is unreasonable to assume that the less time it takes the laid-off employees to find jobs（the less time it takes to find laid-off employees jobs这样是不是好点？), the better one company's services are, since detailed information about the positions are not considered by the arguer. Perhaps, the persons who have found jobs within a short period of time were just looking for a temporary job in order to support their families. In fact, they were not satisfied with the jobs and were still searching better opportunities. On the other hand, those who took longer to be employed may have found better positions, which offer higher salaries and more vacations. In addition, the argument fails to investigate the future development of those employees’ career. Are those who found jobs quicker all promoted or keeping being laid off? Without these vital information about jobs, it is groundless to claim that Delany benefits the laid-off workers.（嗯，这个点的确比较好，我吸收一下O(∩_∩)O~）

Second, comparing the rate of employment 8 years ago of Walsh with that of Delany one year ago is not convincing. One must consider the circumstances of the time 8 years ago. Perhaps society might be suffering financial crisis then and it was difficult for all people to find jobs. But one year later, with the help of Walsh, they all succeeded being employed. One must also take into account the employment rate of Walsh at present. Perhaps, with their assistance, one can find a more satisfactory position in shorter time than being served by Delany.

Finally, both bigger staff and larger number of branch offices are not symbols of superioty. Does the company of Delany work efficiently with bigger staff? In most conditions, More employees can only mean more troubles which brought by competitions and disagreements. Besides, do they need more offices? Probably, the staffs are giving assistance through phone and the Internet instead of by face to face. Consequently, bigger staff and larger working space can only indicate high charges rather than better services.

To conclusion, before any final choices are made, the XYZ company has to collect more concrete statistics about the two personnel firms in order to benefit the laid-off employees.
基本没什么问题，或许我需要再自我提高一下，再来改你的~~